<p>This is a problem with the education system in U.S.A, unfortunately.</p>
<p>I never really thought about the fact that the SAT is 4 hours long whereas the GPA covers 4 years of effort. </p>
<p>It actually does make sense that the GPA > SAT in terms of importance because GPA cover much more things. Of course, that doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t try to do the best on the SAT.</p>
<p>@cortana</p>
<p>your argument makes zero sense. let me explain why:</p>
<p>1870 isn’t even close to the 50th percentile for duke. the 25th percentile for duke is a 2020. so let me extrapolate and guesstimate that 2200 (or something around there) is the 50th percentile for duke. </p>
<p>your argument states that if you have less than the 50th percentile sat (2200) and are not hooked, you are going to be rejected. that literally makes no sense whatsoever. and before you say i’m twisting your words, you explicitly stated “if your SAT score is below the 50th percentile for the school and you are unhooked, you are pretty much rejected.” so if i don’t get a 2200, i’m basically going to be rejected? no, it doesn’t work that way. obviously the higher the score, the better the odds, but if i get a score between the 25-75 range i obviously have some sort of shot. </p>
<p>i understand the importance of the sat and i did okay (2100), but this argument just does not make sense.</p>
<p>Well let’s see. Rachel toors, a former duke admissions officer, explicitly stated that duke generally doesn’t take students who score less than dukes median sat score in her book admissions confidential. And I’m sure duke isnt the only highly selective institution that follows this. But I guess she doesn’t know what she talks about right?</p>
<p>I’m getting the idea you really don’t know how admissions work at highly selective school.</p>
<p>I think GPA might want to be revised to class rank. It puts your GPA in context.</p>
<p>^SAT does the same thing, puts the GPA in context.</p>
<p>How is it possible that they don’t accept people who score less than Duke’s median SAT score if half the people accepted score less than the median SAT score? That doesn’t make any sense</p>
<p>Well I’m getting the idea that you don’t know how medians work. IT’S THE MIDDLE NUMBER. Pretty much half below half above with some at the median exactly. If you go through acceptance decision threads you will see that <em>gasp</em> unhooked applicants who score less than the median do get in. Honestly, you’re an idiot who thinks he has a firm grasp on the college admissions process. Stop claiming things as facts when they clearly aren’t.</p>
<p>^Read carefully next time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No you read carefully. He said in his original post if you score less than the 50th percentile, you are basically rejected.</p>
<p>cortana’s just mad because the best school he got into was rensselaer lol.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I think that placing less reliance on the SAT is a way for colleges to apply subjective criteria to their decision making. As you said, some schools hand out A’s" like crazy, but you can’t fake it on the SAT. I am always amazed when I see some kid on college confidential says he is valecdictorian, but only has a 1950 SAT score.</p>
<p>If schools gave equal emphasis to the SATs, the fact is that URM acceptances will be greatly diminished.</p>
<p>Also, there are the SAT optional schools out there, who would love to admit some kid who can pay the full tuition bill, but they can’t do that with a straight face if the kid has low SAT scores. So the easy way to solve the problem is to simply declare the
SAT to be “biased” or “unfair”.</p>
<p>My wife taught Calculus for a year at a good high school. She was under intense pressure not to give out bad grades, even when they were deserved. </p>
<p>I understand that in Canada and the UK, they give more emphasis to standardized test scores than in the US. I would suggest kids with high SAT scores consider that option. Why play in a game where the rules are rigged against you? </p>
<p>By the way, I only got a 1200 SAT (in the days before the writing section).</p>
<p>In my freshman and sophmore years, I was a victim of hard grading. Half of my teachers graded very hard and gave out lengthy assignments which other kids of the same grade didnt have. Honestly, these courses put more pressure on my classmates and me to meet deadlines. We learned little and I even got a C+ for one semester for math. As a result, my GPA declined in the first two years. Fast forward to junior year, I am doing well. Nearly straight A’s in honors and AP because of teachers who have a nice and balanced teaching style. </p>
<p>Furthermore, I scored 660 Cr 800 M, 800 W. Ive proved that im competent at least but my gpa will greatly bring me down even with an upward trend. It hurts but I know I have to accept it.</p>
<p>I don’t understand who’s arguing with who</p>
<p>That’s not a nice way to talk to people</p>
<p>^ are you talking about me ?</p>
<p>Doesn’t the SAT more proficiently reflect your actual knowledge than GPA does?</p>
<p>^Not your ‘actual knowledge’ (See SAT Subject tests)it is supposed to test your mental ability and reasoning skills.</p>
<p>As well as knowledge.</p>
<p>^cortana</p>
<p>You could argue only the math and cr test reasoning. So 2/3. The other 1/3 is ehh. Its just a bunch of repeated rules. Not that much reasoning in my opinion.</p>
<p>Everyone is going to be a bit biased toward something in which they have a relatively better score, a 1.0 student with a 2400/36 is going to be biased toward the SAT/ACT a 4.0 with a 600 is going to be biased the other way; In my opinion (I’m biased, 2390 SAT) I think standardized tests are a better predictor of intelligence and knowledge, someone with a B in biology and 800 SAT bio is far more intelligent and knowledgeable than someone with an A and a 650 SAT bio; GPA only proves how much of a hard-worker you’re, while the SAT, SAT II, ACT, AP, all prove your knowledge and reasoning skills. Besides GPA is different from school to school, from teacher to teacher, a 4.0 from Exeter is not the same as a 4.0 from a random crappy school in Louisiana. Anyway that’s just what I think, but this also depends on a lot of other factors, for example who would you prefer an economically disadvantaged lazy genius or a hard-worker from an accommodated family (the genius has way higher scores but a much lower GPA) ?</p>